Changes

|Summary=Accept that the handling of scientific error , as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with ''the theory rejection theorem''.

|Authors List=Paul Patton, Sarah Machado-Marques, Paul Patton

|Preamble=TODO: Paul add a preambleIn 2018, [[Maxim Mirkin]] and [[Sinan Karamehmetoglu]] [[Mechanism of Error Rejection|raised the issue]] of whether cases of scientific error were compatible with [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|Modification=Accept the theory rejection theorem]]. They were concerned thatit appeared as though, in cases of error handling, a theory was simply being removed from the mosaic without being replaced by any other theory. [[The First Law|The first law of scientific practicechange]] states that "an element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements". The first law, together with the [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)| compatibility corollary]] can be used to deduce [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)| the theory rejection theorem]], which states that "A theory becomes rejected only when other theories incompatible with the theory become accepted".  Having analyzed several instances of scientific error, we show that scientific error handling , when properly analyzed, is fully consistent with the theory rejection theorem.[[CiteRef::Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)]] Instances of scientific error typically involve the rejection of one or more of the premises of the argument that leads to the erroneous conclusion as well as the conclusion itself. In most cases, first-order propositions of the original erroneously accepted theory are replaced by other first-order propositions incompatible with them. In some cases, however, first-order propositions are replaced by second-order propositions asserting the lack of sufficient reason for accepting these first-order propositions. In both cases, such a replacement is fully in accord consistent with the theory rejection theorem.|Modification=|To Accept=Error Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2021-0003

|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2021|Date Assessed Month=October|Date Assessed Day=8

|Verdict Rationale=The commentators agreed that "the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-183|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-159|c2]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-182|c3]]} It was agreed that the rejection of a theory that was accepted erroneously can be "a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-159|c4]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-182|c5]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-185|c6]]} One commentator expressed a common opinion when saying that "the authors are able to put to rest concerns about the handling of scientific error potentially contravening the theory rejection theorem".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0004#comment-185|c7]]}